28,650 Forum Posts by "poxpower"
You're so stupid if you don't watch Golden Boy
Golden boy.
Most every other anime is basically about some underdog kid with endless natural potential overcoming progressively stronger enemies using an overly creative and specific fighting skill.
But golden boy is all about the boobs.
So when are you shooting up the school exactly?
At 10/2/13 08:45 PM, Psycho666 wrote:At 10/2/13 08:41 PM, poxpower wrote: Related lolWow! And here I thought that this little thing I had to talk about was just a mostly speculative and theoretical kind of idea!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ughYtwwSOFU
Plastic surgery is still generally not at the point where it makes a big difference in society though.
For one thing, you can often notice fairly easily that it's been done and it only affects small things like crooked ears or big noses.
For another, it is too expensive to get done that it is relatively rare.
On top of that traits that were hidden by plastic surgery of the parent(s) can obviously be corrected by the same plastic surgery in the children ( for instance poor vision can be corrected easily ).
If someone was worried about the genes of their kids ( and most people aren't as they think that it's their parenting that makes all the difference when it really isn't ) they could just get artificially inseminated by some Nobel laureate or a viking or whatever. Also most humans care more about it being THEIR kid than the kid being genetically fit. That's a natural instinct; to pass on your specific set of genes.
That's why I think most people oppose sterilization type interventions even for the most extreme elements of society like pedophiles or murderers. The idea of cutting off someone's genetic line is really viscerally offensive apparently.
Anyway arguably easier living conditions are contributing a LOT more to the deterioration of the gene pool than plastic surgery. For instance, asthma which would be fatal in nature now spreads easily as it no longer prevents most anyone from having kids. If this current trend went on I would imagine most everyone would have some list of genetic defects in a couple dozen generations as negative mutations / defects are no longer being selected out.
Fortunately genetic manipulation will solve all of this in relatively short order and I fail to see how it won't become widespread very fast as the cost of it goes down and the options go up.
Related lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ughYtwwSOFU
At 10/2/13 07:37 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
That's not what I meant. I said balance. Poor socio-economical situation is always in direct correlation with violence, not matter what is the color of the skin of the people living in these. Violence, poverty, misery always generates more violence, poverty and misery.
Poverty affects different groups differently. For instance, poor women commit a lot less violent crimes than poor men. There is not a 1:1 correlation of poverty to violent crime.
The same can be said of ethnic groups with poor asians having a lower crime rate than poor blacks and rich blacks having a higher crime rate than rich whites for instance.
Once again the most likely explanation you will get will boil down to "it's systemic racism" or sometimes you'll hear things about the black "thug" culture or the Asian "culture of work" etc. Basically anything to remove personal responsibility from the offender.
I disagree. Poor decision making and a shitty capabality at making smart and logic decisions from the girl who got raped doesn't make her responsible of the rape. She's a victim.
Well of course she is a victim but it doesn't usually cause permanent and extensive psychological damage as is portrayed in Hollywood. The system turns the person from a one-time victim of a violent act into a lifetime victim of psychological damage that is really mostly caused by the therapist and the ease of living your life by blaming your failures on things you can't control.
And you are kind of derailing the thread, really. We do not need this thread to be another of your demonstrations on why you believe that whites are better than blacks and why you believe males to be better then females.
I don't think you realize that the reason why it's not OK to have white pride and the reason why there always will be "inequality" between races and genders is precisely because of genetics.
Minority groups will always achieve differently in society and "pride" is mostly about blaming the dominant group for your failures.
If you don't even know what your group's expected rate of success is, how can you ever claim to be discriminated against? Going back to women and men: Feminists will always blame the "patriarchy" for things we now know are genetic, like toddlers being interested in different things depending on their genders despite the testers trying to force them to be interested in gender "neutral" or contrary objects / activities ( for instance trying to make little girls be interested in trucks more than dolls ). Just doesn't work like they think and this has extensive rammifications in society and causes precisely the double standard you are noticing right now and making this thread about, namely that it's not ok to be proud of being male because males seemingly OVERachieve demographically whereas women "under" achieve ( but only in selected fields they want to get into like politics, prize-winning sciences, fortune 500 and not things they don't like for instance garbage collection or foot soldiers ).
This goes to the very core of your question: Why do people think it's OK to be feminist? Because they perceive a systemic unfairness when in reality there is none and you can only know this if you do the psychological studies which indeed accurately predict things like men committing more violent crimes but also winning more Fields Medals.
Based on genetics alone you'd predict that many many more men would be in power than women but people, not knowing this, will therefore always try to find where the sexism is in the system to explain this outcome which television has told them is impossible because we are all equal etc. etc.
At 10/2/13 06:38 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:
I hate to say this :P but we might want to find some kind of balance between these two. Both individuality and social determinisms have to be considered when judging who's responsible for somebody's actions.
Yes that is why race and gender-based psychological studies are so interesting and worthwhile to do yet you can lose your job if you even suggested doing such studies, let alone the difficulties you'd encounter getting funding for them.
But psychology moves on and more and more studies are coming out about the heritability of traits, the effects of traumatisms, racism, parenting etc etc. and the trend is far more towards personnal responsibility than blaming your failures on others, as is the current popular thing to do.
Just think for instance about all the shows where a character goes to a psychiatrist and then proceeds to blame whatever current difficulty on something that happened a long time ago when he was a kid. ( Good Will Hunting for instance, good example ).
Studies tell us this just isn't how humans work unless you actually build a culture of victimhood.
But go on Facebook ( or wherever ) and try to say that a woman who got raped and is now blaming her poor love life on it is actually causing her own problems and see what kind of reaction you get for even suggesting that she might be just partly at fault or that it's generally unhealthy and unproductive to behave like a victim instead of owning up to your failures.
In other words currently, whatever happened to minorities /women in the past is now seen as causing 100% of all their future failures forever. I've often wondered for instance how you could make a fair society in the eyes of feminists in which they couldn't blame their problems on the patriarchy and frankly I cannot think of any.
Even if you gave them their own fucking planet to go live on they'd still be blaming male priviledge and how we didn't give them a big enough planet or enough startup money or this or that nonsense. There is literally no way to right the wrongs of the past in the eyes of people who will always blame failures not on themselves but on others every chance they get.
At 10/2/13 02:16 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:
Okay, let me put it this way. Being white confers certain privileges. Being a man confers certain privileges.
Like what?
Being black confers privileges I can actually name:
- Lower standards of admission in schools
- More exclusive financial help programs both private and public
- Positive representation in crime stories in the media ( Zimmerman case a perfect example )
- Lower standards of admission for jobs / jobs training
- More positions available specifically and explicitly for your ethnicity in government and large companies
Disadvantages of being white:
- Restricted free speech both in public and in the workplace ( to the point you can easily lose your job )
- Higher standards of entry for jobs and college
- Constantly suspected of racism if they commit a crime or select a non-minority over a white person for any reason
The privileges of whites are impossible to distinguish from simple personal / family success and the "disadvantages" of blacks are now impossible to distinguish from personal / group failure.
In some ways affirmative action has backfired since some companies are less likely to hire minorities since they are a legal liability BECAUSE OF ALL THE ADVANTAGES they are "owed". They are to be treated as special employees with endless free passes and some companies don't want to deal with this shit.
People will point to this as "racism" when in fact it's a disadvantage brought forth by an overflow of advantages. The same is true for the handicapped and women.
Other examples of "racism" are when people simply behave as the statistics would demand they do. They'd claim it's racists for cops to target young black males for stop and frisk when young black males are by far the most crime-prone group. What's that got to do with racism? Racism would be frisking 50% blacks and 50% whites as that has no bearing on reality.
The same thing is found in dating; black males and females are less desirable even to other black males and females. Again people will ascribe this to racism or systemic unfairness, claiming black people are "brainwashed" into self-loathing when the explanation is far simpler: Statistically speaking black people make worse mates and they themselves realize this.
Go look for yourselves on those dating sites you'll notice the black men have lower education, most spelling mistakes and generally shit profiles.
And again an oft-cited example of "racism" is the high incarceration rate of black people. Once more they cannot point to individual cases of racism as 99.99% of the time if you look at the individual offense, it's clear that the black person is guilty. They just cite statistics and then assume that there is no explanation for them other than racism. They can't actually point out the racism, the just "effects" of this racism which could easily be explained in many other ways that they conveniently choose to ignore.
When all such arguments have been exhausted, they will inevitably point back to slavery and old-era racism which has given white people their current-day power and fortunes. They will say that whatever white people have today is because their ancestors stole it from the blacks and the native Americans and therefore forever will white people be in debt to other races so that even if they cannot point to current-day systemic racism or overt racism keeping minorities disproportionately out of power, they can always ( and forever ) claim ancestral rights to actual tangible race-based benefits that they get in today's society as listed above.
Alternately, if you want to learn a bit more about the subject from actual scholars and not random YouTube rants, check out Richard Dyer's "White: Essays on Race and Culture." The book traces the history of cultural representations of whiteness throughout Western visual culture, eventually focusing on examples from modern cinema (since that's Dyer's usual area of study).
What does it say?
Probably nothing smart as he's an "an English academic specialising in cinema" so basically this guy:
At 10/2/13 02:05 PM, AxTekk wrote:
the chances are that you do so as a reactionary. The chances are also that you're a bigot.
That "argument" reminds me of how religious people view atheists. To them it's just "rebelling" as atheists TRULY know that god exist but they're just angry and they don't want to follow his rules.
Similarly, anyone who is proud of being white can't just be proud of white accomplishments, no, they have to be RACIST and BIGOTED and have some kind of evil agenda.
Because you predominantly know of white pride groups and individuals through negative examples (Hitler, the KKK), you ascribe their motives to anyone who'd have white pride no matter what they said to you.
This is not based on rationality it's just the narrative that the media is playing over and over. Camaro's arguments are just a string of barely cogent rationalizations for instance, it's fairly plain to see. If the media chose to portray black pride negatively, then you would think of it as negative within 20 years. If they repeatedly showed the Black Panthers and talked about black on white violence in a racial way like they do with white on black violence, you would come to see "Black Pride" as a largely negative thing and you'd use the same arguments you do now; that "Whoever is for black pride is generally some violent bigot" and so on and so forth.
Right now all people do is focus on whatever good things black did ( Martin Luther King Jr. ... er.. the peanut butter guy..?) and the bad things white people did ( slavery, genocide etc. ) with no regards for reality or balance. In truth white people have done far more for blacks than the reverse, they have invented almost everything in the modern world yet this is not something to be proud of because, as Camaro puts it, we are SOO successful that it'd be like overkill to be proud of how good we are. No one who wins a gold medal should be proud, clearly, because he's just oppressing the guy who won silver. That's the rationale we're being told to buy.
At 10/2/13 01:23 PM, NewgroundsMike wrote:
Still not an excuse to create a thread advocating genocide.
Which this.. is not... so yeah
At 10/2/13 11:19 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Animals, at least most of the time, kill either for food or for pussy.
But humans, most of the time, don't kill at all lol.
Animals are crap.
At 10/2/13 09:50 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:
but unlike animals, humans kill for no reason at all. I am so fucking sick of this world.
The most evolved animals are the ones who kill for pleasure or for non-food related reasons.
For instance killer whales will toy with seals, cats will do so with mice as well. Kodiak bears kill and only eat a small part of the salmon when there is lots of fish.
Lots of primates kill each other in turf wars and the chimps, worst of all, organize actual "wars" to take over enemy territory.
It's so dumb to think animals are somehow noble. They're stupid and violent. Their entire existence is violence, pain and fear.
Here HeavenDuff, this might interest you. You surely will have noticed many of the things he is talking about are true not only among your own circle of friends but in society in general.
At 10/1/13 11:03 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:At 10/1/13 08:52 AM, poxpower wrote: Heterosexual white males are not 50% of the country, therefore they are a minority.Well that's retarded... If you use a combination of three specificities... nobody will ever be a minority.
You mean a majority. And yes.
That is how the game is played. You don't have to prove that, as an individual, you are suffering from these so-called "systemic" inequalities that are caused by the "white male majority" or "white male culture". All you have to do is find what minority you can claim to be in the list of "politically accepted minorities" and then complain.
No part of "mainstream culture" is "white pride" or "male pride" or "straight pride" as Camaro claims either.
Going back to the Jewish example: Because of the holocaust, it's ok to have Jew pride or at least it's not okay to make fun of Jews. But demographically speaking they are overwhelmingly powerful and responsible for "mainstream culture".
So if you were Jewish, it would be ok to be proud of Einstein, Charlie Chaplin or Jon Stewart for being Jewish but if you were just white it wouldn't be ok to be proud of them for their whiteness.
It's not a matter of genetics either as people who are proud of their ethnicity ( latinos for instance ) don't claim to be genetically superior, they just claim to have a distinct and worthwhile culture whereas you cannot be proud of the accomplishments of white people, you may only feel shame for their mistakes. You can't attribute anything to white ingenuity, talent or hard work ( for instance, like 95% of nobel prizes, modern inventions, science, democracy ) unless you do so by selecting a smaller portion of whites either be language, ethnicity, religion or whatever else.
Anyway the point is that none of these people care about white priviledge or proving it exists. They have just found an endless fountain of benefits from which to draw as long as white people / men are too damn weak and stupid to say "hey wait a minute we kind of made all of this".
Just look at the advances women have made. No matter how many advantages you give them, they don't even come close to outshining men in higher circles of sciences. Feminists will never cease to blame this on male privilege, ever. Not until at least 50% ( or more ) of, say, Nobel prizes in sciences are given to women each year.
They are not really interested in the question of "why" anymore, all they want is for their group to be as good as whatever they perceive the leading group to be ( for instance the USA has a half black president but that doesn't really matter to them as again there is no point in time when they will achieve enough "equality" ). Their premise is always that their group is equal if not superior to others and therefore they are OWED the same measure of success and that success will always have to trickle down from those who arguably actually earned it to those who cry and whine that they truly are the ones deserving of it because of "systemic inequality" or whatever decades/centuries-old ancestral slight.
Yeah anyway that's what I think.
At 10/1/13 06:30 PM, Ejit wrote:At 10/1/13 02:03 PM, poxpower wrote:Listen to your friend Billy Zane,At 10/1/13 01:49 PM, Entice wrote: Maybe some people don't feel so disadvantaged by stupid people existing that they think it's justifiable to sterilize or murder people with low IQ.
He's a cool dude
And he's trying to help you out.
You make this forum worse.
So this year I am trying to complete watching imdb's top 250 movies of all time list:
http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=listyear#link1
( only 50 to go lol )
It got me thinking: What would be a list of the most culturally RELEVANT movies and would it be any different? What movies in your mind do you HAVE to watch not because they are the best but because they are so ingrained into pop culture?
I will start you off with 3 examples, let's try to make it 100! Also if possible post a picture of the most memorable moment.
- Jaws (1975)
- Psycho (1960)
- The Shining (1980)
At 10/1/13 04:18 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: My jaw is on the floor. This is the single most idiotic thread I have ever seen in my nine years here. I'm fucking speechless.
You must hate science fiction movies. They probably confuse and anger you as you try to smash the blue square piece into the big red circle hole. "ONE DAY SQUARE, ONE DAY YOU ENTER INTO HOLE. ARRRRRRG WHAT IS THIS? SPACE LASERS ON THE PICTURE BOX! I AM SCARED WHAT DOES IT MEAN? ARE SPACE LASERS MY GOD? NO DARTH VADER AGAIN HE'S GOING TO ATTACK PLANET EARTH THIS TIME WE'RE ALL DOOMED !! ARRRG BRAIN HURT MAKE STOP!!"
At 10/1/13 01:49 PM, Entice wrote:At 10/1/13 01:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Then what the hell are you arguing about.Maybe some people don't feel so disadvantaged by stupid people existing that they think it's justifiable to sterilize or murder people with low IQ.
No one's advocating anything, this is a thought experiment.
At 10/1/13 01:52 PM, Ejit wrote:At 10/1/13 01:46 PM, poxpower wrote:More to the point how the hell have you still not noticed what I'm arguing aboutAt 10/1/13 01:45 PM, Ejit wrote:I've not once questioned the heritability of IQThen what the hell are you arguing about.
It's pretty hard since you don't reply to anything.
So far you seem to be claiming that the bottom 5% in IQ are there strictly by virtue of bad socio-economic conditions.
Again if that's your point, you don't understand mine.
Also even if that were the case, it would still be beneficial to sterilize them and pretty much get you the same kinds of gains, which you didn't see fit to comment on ( probably because you are too smart ).
At 10/1/13 01:45 PM, Ejit wrote:
I've not once questioned the heritability of IQ
Then what the hell are you arguing about.
At 10/1/13 01:17 PM, Ejit wrote:
Because the studies probably undersampled people who live in the most deprived segment of Western societies, the findings should not be considered as generalizable to such populations
That's really only his opinion for this one data set.
The heritability of intelligence is not really contested in mainstream psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
Again still dodging the main point I made.
At 10/1/13 12:41 PM, Ejit wrote:
I'm currently writing a dissertation on behavioural syndromes, or personality, and their plasticity with regard to environmental influence. I'm well aware of personal traits being heritable. I'm also well aware that it is not the only contributing factor, as is anyone familiar with the fundamental elements of genetics, namely the simplified GxE model.
I don't think you understood the implications of the link I posted.
Finding a correlation among twins doesn't have any relevance to ascertaining socioeconomic influence on intelligence which is essentially what we're debating.
Yes it does, they are twins reared apart which means they have the same genes but different upbringing and environments. It's a near-perfect test for calculating heritability of not only intelligence but many other things.
Then you ignored the rest of what I posted for some reason even though I don't think you understand what happens if you remove the bottom 5% in intelligence of a population.
Even if you claim we currently don't have the tools to ascertain what that bottom 5% in intelligence is you surely must understand what would happen to the overall cognitive capacities of a society if we actually got rid of that bottom 5%.
At 10/1/13 11:25 AM, Ejit wrote:
So, despite the statement that it's more than likely the majority of the bottom 5% on the IQ scale are not so as a result of genetic disposition and citing a ranking of nations by IQ with a clear correlation as regards sociopolitical climate, you aren't able to understand why this is relevant to the (clearly otherwise absurd) notion that killing off the poorest sections of society isn't an effective method of improving it, or raising mental capacity? Your (idiotic) assertion that the 5% is a random sample is no rebuttal.
Here is an article on the heritability of traits: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/06/heritability-of-behavioral-traits/#.Ukr1KYasjPo
As you can see, you have learned about none of this in school nor have you ever heard about these facts in the media. These are all relatively new findings in psychology.
As you can see, intelligence is a strongly heritable trait, meaning that poverty, politics, education, parenting etc. play a much smaller role in it than you think.
That means that in the current bottom 5% of the world, it's more than likely that most are there largely by virtue of their genes. Even if you corrected all factors in that population, it's unlikely that you'd be killing off, say, a large number of the top 10% in intelligence who by some misfortune would have ended up in that 5%.
Meaning that it would take extreme EXTREME conditions, unheard of even, for someone with a 120 point "natural" IQ to start scoring 70 consistently on tests.
So more likely than not, if the bottom 5% cuttoff is, say, a 65 point IQ, even if you made mistakes, most of the "mistakes" would be people with IQs not too far above 65 anyway, on a 100 point average for a population.
So any way you slice it, the bottom 5% of any population are far below average and heavily influenced genetically to be there. NOT TO MENTION that if you only do this once, you also eliminate a large population of non-functional mentally handicapped people, which would not be the case if you did this every 5 years as eventually even the bottom 5% would be fully functioning independent adults, they'd just be far below average, it's simply that the average would have been bumped up.
If you don't understand how raising average national IQ raises mental capacity then I can't help you.
At 10/1/13 10:48 AM, Ejit wrote:
If it were in the interest of states to increase the "cognitive function" of their populus, they could do so with considerably greater efficacy and value by increasing educational standards, funding and accessibility. As you can see, they don't consider it in their interests.
This thread is about the benefits of genocide, not about the best way to educate people.
In no way am I advocating genocide over funding education or whatever else.
I'm going to venture you don't know a fucking thing about psychology or genetics.
So for some reason you thought that the list of countries by IQ, which I know quite well btw, is some kind of evidence that I know nothing about the heritability of psychological traits?
?
And furthermore it proves some kind of point about.. sterilization in third world countries...?
?
At 10/1/13 09:27 AM, Ejit wrote:
To who?
Humans in general. Same as we deem it beneficial to us to not be homo habilis and we enjoy the things a homo sapiens can make, like Breaking Bad and cake.
How?
Cutting down the bottom 5% leaves a society with a higher cognitive function, lower propensity for crime and generally lower rate of heritable genetic defects, among many benefits.
Society benefits from subjugation and exploitation of others.
sometimes
In addition the inherent assumption that the bottom 5% are that way through innate disposition is a stupid one itself.
Why? You just countered what you believe to be an assumption with an assertion just as baseless.
The last 2 decades of psychology has taught us that heritability plays a very large role in behaviour and general capacity. The USA is just about as egalitarian a society as you'll ever be able to make ( in fact it favors the bottom 5% in many ways ) so rest assured that this 5% is about as non-random as you could get it.
Not that anyone advocates killing anyone but to say they're the bottom 5% merely because of some phantom systemic unfairness is pretty ignorant but fairly typical.
Beneficial to "us", but not to "them".
Well no, it would benefit them massively, way more than it would benefit us. Whatever sadness or unrest would come from their not being able to have more babies for a while would be more than balanced by massive hikes in educational achievement, drops in poverty, crime, famine, disease and so on and so forth.
Obviously. I'm going to take it as a given that you're gleefully trolling in the manner of the thread starter by this point.
You're a sad sad little mind.
At 10/1/13 04:07 AM, 24901miles wrote: People like to say that the best leaders are those who take something negative and make it into a positive. Could that also apply to the most intuitively unethical practices of history, like genocide?
Yes.
Genocide can't really be a benefit for the ones being wiped out though but it can be an obvious benefit to those wiping them out.
For instance; Wiping out the Native Americans was hugely beneficial to the Europeans and we, to this day, reap the benefits of that. What is left of them have failed to integrate and cause a myriad of problems so yeah for us, it would be better if they had all 100% been wiped out centuries ago.
Similarly, if we were to kill the bottom 5% of IQ in the population, in like 50 years it would be a huge boon to society. Sadly in the short term, it is kind of a bummer.
The world of today is so interconnected though that it would be hard to find a population to wipe out that no one would miss. People understand that, say, not all Iranians are insane and so it'd be hard to clear that part of the map without massive resistance at home.
Similarly, a massive sterilization campaign in the third world ( or at home ) where you basically pay people to get sterilized would cause a massive uproar. But it could be done and probably work quite well to the benefit of pretty much everyone on the planet except feminists or people with those stupid-ass earlob plugs.
At 10/1/13 12:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
The reason the left wing supports the minority groups is because they're needs and wants and goals are not represented by mainstream culture.
Heterosexual white males are not 50% of the country, therefore they are a minority.
It's a foolish argument anyway as in places where white people are the minority (such as in South Africa), I doubt it's well-viewed for them to organize "white pride" anythings or to talk about white nationalism or how being white is something worthwhile.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz5kfy_louis-theroux-whites-de-boers-in-south-africa_lifestyle
Minorities, as you call them, even though demographically if you add up women, gays, handicapped, muslims, blacks, latinos etc. etc. are the majority, have tons of power in America.
Affirmative action is a perfect and deep example of how much power minorities have accrued for themselves by guilt-tripping empty-sacked white males and university officials. The standards of entry to many professions and schools is now so low for all applicants to make sure a certain number of blacks get in that education is garbage.
The feminist movement is so strong on television that merely questioning their shrill motives is grounds for endless attacks. Here is a good channel for a multitude of talks and examples of this nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat?feature=g-subs-u
HR departments also. They have trained a legion of "diversity" and"sensitivity" consultants who basically do nothing whatsoever for a company but vet them into some sort of "they aren't racists" imaginary club.
The Zimmerman case shows you just how it's a total lie to claim mainstream culture is somehow against minorities. A latino man legitimately defending himself from a black teenager was portrayed as a racist white man hunting and killing a defenceless black child.
Yet it is not ok to form any commitees or do any studies to even check if any of these measure are too extremes. If you were to demand funding for a study to see if white students are disadvantaged because of affirmative action, you would get laughed at simply because black people generally still under perform in society. Even if you were to find out that affirmative action did not help blacks but hindered white kids, you could not go on television and say it. You'd most likely just lose your job and be called a racist.
What group really is performing well in America? It's a minority: Jewish people, and more specifically, Ashkenazi jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
Who is denying anyone their rights to be proud of being Jewish? They are white males and dominate heavily in fields like banking, television, movies, law and sciences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM7yQVU4ZE
Why? Because they're fucking smart that's why. Not because of some mystic "Jew male privilege" and "Jew conspiracy" and "Jew ancestry". This country wasn't founded by Jews but lo and behold they came here and because they're naturally brilliant and educated, they have succeeded extremely well. But in our culture it's NOT OK to make fun of them for being Jewish, but it's okay to make fun of them for being white males. Go figure. They don't have any trouble at all succeeding in society, why should their feelings be spared? Why do they need groups to represent them? How few people do you need to be enough of a minority to warrant a group?
You can also be proud to be Christian, which is the majority religion of the USA. They are also in most position of political power yet when have you ever heard that it's wrong to be proud of your Christianity?
Again still you can be proud of your ancestry. You can be proud of your Italian, Spanish, French or British ancestry, even though those countries were warmongering colonialists and just as worthy of random history-hate as "white people" in general.
So again, this case that it's all about "white heterosexual males" being the majority and therefore not in "need" ( which is not even what we're talking about, we are talking about simple RIGHT ) of pride or representation just doesn't stand up at all in my opinion.
Sorry but all things pertaining to video games must be posted in the video game forum.
Just kidding, no one gives a shit.
<3
At 9/28/13 04:59 PM, Darthdenim wrote:
Why do people always assume that aliens,and lost civilizations, and what-not must be smarter than us?
Well if aliens made it to earth then I assume that means they are pretty smart. But it doesn't take that many smart people to invent cool shit while the rest of the population can be mouth-breathing troglodytes...
At 9/28/13 04:53 PM, VGmasters wrote: and probably be much smarter than us.
Why.....??
